Du kannst deine Tweets vom Web aus und über Drittapplikationen mit einem Standort versehen, wie z.B. deiner Stadt oder deinem genauen Standort. Du hast jederzeit die Möglichkeit, Standortangaben nachträglich zu löschen. Mehr erfahren
Tip: if you really want to archive webpages before someone gets to delete them, always take a screenshot. Last year I spent days archiving all I could from the website of FlexiSpy stalkerware, and @internetarchive somehow decided months later to wipe it all and exclude the site.pic.twitter.com/Ve4nzv0PSr
There's some browser extensions out there that allow you to take full page screenshots. Maybe couple it also with multiple archiving services such as http://archive.is . I'd also be interested to hear if there are self-hosted clones of these services.
They’re still subject to US law and take down content upon request. Would be good to 1– demystify that and set expectations and 2– figure out a way to decentralise the archive so it can protect content legally.
Agreed to both points. It seems however that some of those exclusions are the result of retroactive honoring of newly added robots.txt changes. Which to me seems a bit overzealous.
And those are retroactive? Or you’ve lost the crawling going forward?
My understanding is that they are (at least partially) automated, and yes they are retroactive. So all records previous to that change are also not accessible anymore. See https://blog.archive.org/2017/04/17/robots-txt-meant-for-search-engines-dont-work-well-for-web-archives/ …
Looks like they added a robots.txt file with a "Disallow all" paramater, that http://Archive.org used to respect (they announced last year they wouldn't anymore, but gradually https://blog.archive.org/2017/04/17/robots-txt-meant-for-search-engines-dont-work-well-for-web-archives/ … )
Does respecting newly added robots.txt also mean doing so retroactively and remove all historical records collected until then?
Yes: "We have also seen an upsurge of the use of robots.txt files to remove entire domains from search engines when they transition from a live web site into a parked domain, which has historically also removed the entire domain from view in the Wayback Machine."
Right, I read that, I meant - should it?
That's a tough question... Legally speaking, it's a risk that they don't (a risk they now take, but websites owners can ask them to remove the archive)
Fair. I think there’s some misconception to correct then, cause I often see it recommended to journalists or activists as a tool to preserve evidence. And for a reason or another, it just isn’t.
. @botherder What exactly are you trying to achieve by doing this? Ironically you seem to have become a stalker yourself — take a look in the mirror.
By doing what? Using Internet Archive?
Did you reach out to @internetarchive to see what happened?
Yep. I wrote them in September last year, and never got an answer.
How rude ;)
They didn't reply to journalistic requests either.
.@josephfcox You're not a journalist you’re an internet blogger. FYI, we've already written to http://archive.org explaining that you are acting like an obsessed pest — and to respect our right to have content removed.
Can you be a little more specific, @FlexiSPYLtd, on what you mean by "our right to have content removed"?
I thought it was well known you can have your site excluded from @internetarchive. Not exactly a secret.
Calm down flexispy employee @originalhater
Twitter ist möglicherweise überlastet oder hat einen vorübergehenden Schluckauf. Probiere es erneut oder besuche Twitter Status für weitere Informationen.
